Racist Obama/Joker image … er … not so racist anymore

Turns out the guy behind the infamous epitome of white conservative racism is in fact not white and not conservative. He's actually an 20-year-old American born Pakistani living in Chicago who said if he had to support a politician it would be Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

So why did a bored college student create the controversial image of his fellow Chicagoan?

After Obama was elected, you had all of these people who basically saw him as the second coming of Christ," Alkhateeb said. "From my perspective, there wasn't much substance to him."

While he finds much of the liberal criticism hypocritical, he did not add the "Socialism" tag.

He's honored by Shepard Fairey's assessment of his Joker picture, but disagrees with some of Fairey's comments criticizing the message of the Socialism poster.

"He made a picture of Bush as a vampire," Alkhateeb said about Fairey. "That's kind of speaking with two faces."

Regardless, Alkhateeb does agree with the Obama "Hope" artist about "socialism" being the wrong caption for the Joker image. "It really doesn't make any sense to me at all," he said. "To accuse him of being a socialist is really … immature. First of all, who said being a socialist is evil?"

This leaves the left in a quandary of its own creation. It has declared the image racist, end of story. Supposedly because of the white make-up on a black President, it must be racist. Nevermind the fact that if the image had left off the make-up and only had the mutilated face, the left would be saying the poster called for conservatives to knife up the President.

Yet Alkhateeb, per his racial and political makeup, is absolved from any charge of racism according to the left. How can they continue the racist right meme? HotAir has a theory:

Perhaps the nefarious right-wing “climate of hate” seeped into the poor lad’s mind and had him do its bidding subconsciously.

Behold the dark Rovian powers. But if we can do that, why didn't we just win the election? Apparently, we have the power, but lack common sense to use it effectively. Quick, someone get Karl Rove a copy of the 100 Rules for Evil Overlords, particularly 40: "I will be neither chivalrous nor sporting. If I have an unstoppable superweapon, I will use it as early and as often as possible instead of keeping it in reserve."

"…which liberals called that image racist?" Not me. I said I actually liked it. Aaron even wrote I was outraged, which wasn't true. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the joker more of an anarchist than a socialist?

Who called it racist? Well for starters lets stay right here on our blog:

I do, however, think this version of Obama is over the top, particularly as it presents him in white-face (yes, it's racist) and portrays him as the psychotically evil Joker and charges him (falsely by any fair measure) with socialism.

That would be Louis, in Daniel's initial post on the topic. You can find a column at the WaPo opining over the subliminal racial undertones to the poster:

So why the anonymity? Perhaps because the poster is ultimately a racially charged image. By using the "urban" makeup of the Heath Ledger Joker, instead of the urbane makeup of the Jack Nicholson character, the poster connects Obama to something many of his detractors fear but can't openly discuss. He is black and he is identified with the inner city, a source of political instability in the 1960s and '70s, and a lingering bogeyman in political consciousness despite falling crime rates.

Or you can look to the LA Weekly who said, "only thing missing is the noose." Those were just the high profile media types. You can find a ton more of your run of the mill lefty blogger. Again, it doesn't apply to every liberal. If you didn't think it was racist to start with, then the post wasn't about you. Cin, go back and read the comments I never said you personally were outraged. I responded to your linking to a video by a crazy Christian conspiracy theorist. Then I went to the topic of the post and noted the outrage by many on the left. I also said that I thought the poster was unfocused and not clear because of the point you raised – The Joker is not really about socialism or even an empty suit as the photoshopper suggested was his motivation. As I said originally the point of satire should be clear, the poster is not.

"…The Joker is not really about socialism" OK, so why was that added by conservatives? Hmmmmm, there are some socialist countries in Europe."I responded to your linking to a video by a crazy Christian conspiracy theorist." Why do you call it crazy? Even your partner Seeker thought it was intriguing in a strange way. The only thing was that Obama isn't European but according to the Joker poster, he is synonymous with European socialism. Obama also has descendants that are European. Don't many evangelical Christians believe Obama is the antichrist? According to the translation of his name, the biblical evidence is compelling. Is the only reason you think President Obama is not the antichrist is that he isn't European? What other reasons are there? Also, do you believe in the death panels?

Yes, I did (and do) think it is racist to put a black man in white face. But the whole thing has been blown out of proportion. It's time to move on. What disturbs me about this a bit is that it is occurring at the beginning of Obama's presidency while the truly vicious anti-Bush stuff didn't really start until later. Remember, I voted for Bush in 2004: it was only later that I became disillusioned with him. There has been a concerted effort to demonize Obama which started during the campaign and continues to this day – all this before he even took office. I wish we could get beyond personalities and focus on the issues. That's why I called this a tempest in a teapot – an unimportant sideshow compared to the truly vital problems he is grappling with. I just don't think the Republicans have ever considered giving him a chance. Considered and principled opposition is one thing, this is entirely something else. It's ugly and stupid and unjust.

I said "truly vicious." Protesting the election is not particularly vicious. And who the hell cares whether the creator of the racist Obama image was a "liberal"? Liberals, liberals, liberals!! That's all you guys can think to say. It's a bore. And talk about lies! Listen to Palin for five minutes and you'll probably get six lies (not to mention McCain in the last election). Oh, yeah, and listen to Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher – a walking lie and friend of McCain/Palin. Pigs.

Heh, let me help you a little Louis. You said: "I just don't think the Republicans have ever considered giving him a chance. Considered and principled opposition is one thing, this is entirely something else. It's ugly and stupid and unjust. " Was he maybe a liberal republican? What I said was a direct response to you, relevant, and supported by the individual who made the poster which you call "ugly stupid and unjust." I also love how you jump immediately into your "oh yeah? well someone else did it!" It's your favorite! You really only found "election protests" in there? Do you think Bush-Hitler comparisons are not particularly vicious? Cheers,

Hi aaron: You offered our friend Louis, a writer for the Washington Post and a writer for the LA Weekly as examples of "high profile media types". Let me take those examples one at a time: 1. Our friend Louis: I thought he was just a guy, I didn't know his profile was high:-) If Louis saw racism in the Joker image then all I can say is that I don't see that. Like I said, I liked Heath Ledger in the movie so I wasn't thinking race when I saw it. I just thought it made no sense politically. 2. About the WaPo writer: I looked at your link and the writer was from the style section. I wouldn't consider him to be high profile POLITICALLY, certainly not as high profile as a certain VP candidatte who complained about non-existant "death panels' in the Dem health plan. 3. About the LA Weekly. Like a lot of big city Weeklys, the LA Weekly is a fairly socially "leftist" publication, far down on the tail of the bell curve of ideological opinion in the USA. All in all, I'd say the examples you've cited don't really describe the largest part of the center/left in our country. On the other hand, the fact that 45% in the recent NBC poll believe that Obama-care will impose death panels leads me to believe that large numbers of the center/right believe such repeatedly debunked nonsense. I know a lot of smart conservatives (I count you among that group) but those numbers are flat out disheartening. your friend keith

Here's something new you can debunk: Did the VA, or did the VA not take advice from the Hemlock Society and incorporate it in a pamphlet given to soldiers returning home from Iraq which includes a worksheet that, "asks users to then decide whether their own life would be "not worth living."http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204… Government run healthcare like the VA would never do anything like that, would they?

OK, so why was that added by conservatives? No one knows who added the tag, but I wouldn't begin to understand why they did it. Part of me thinks it is the appeal of doing something like "speaking truth to power." The left has been enjoying the role of dissident party for 8 years. They could get by with simply complaining about the direction Bush was going. Conservatives felt compelled to defend him, even if they didn't agree with him on everything. Now they have a bit of freedom and can feel like a rebel by slapping a poster up that feels "forbidden." Again, I really don't know since personally I don't find the image effective or appealing.Why do you call it crazy? Because it is crazy. It is horrible interpretation of the Bible and it makes a mistake in the first few seconds of the video that a person who took intro to the New Testament in college would catch. The whole thing is based on a false premise. No, I don't think Obama is the antichrist. But as I said before every major political figure is called the antichrist. Google Bush and Antichrist and you will find a ton of links. I watched a really interesting feature on History Channel about the development of that phenomenon. It detailed the myriad of people who have been accused of being that.Don't many evangelical Christians believe Obama is the antichrist? I don't think so. I think many, but not all, evangelical Christians disagree with his policies. (I'm a member of a Southern Baptist church in NC in the same town as my seminary and every week I walk by at least one car in our parking lot with an Obama bumper sticker.) Are there some uninformed individuals who might believe that? Sure. Every group has those who would believe the worst about those they disagree with and who enjoy accepting conspiracy theories. Again, the left has them with the 9/11 Truthers, etc.Also, do you believe in the death panels? I suppose I could answer that with a question: Do you believe Bush intentionally lied to start a war with Iraq? I think those two issues are similar in terms of ideological interpretation. Most liberals, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, don't literally believe that Bush would lie and send American soldiers to their death, along with Iraqi citizens, for no real reason. However, the mantra "Bush Lied. People Died." is perfect for the sound bite culture. It is effective and meshes with the opposition to the war, even if it may not be entirely literally true. Do I believe that Obama is formulating his health care in order to have the government tell people when they could die? No. Do I believe that Obama wants to kill my grandma to save the government some money? No. So in that terms, I do not believe in "death panels." [Oddly, I was flipping through TV the other day and saw Glenn Beck say the same thing, even though he is accused of believing those things.] I do believe that, as Obama himself said, that end of life care is one of the largest expenditures in health care and when the government has a vested, financial interest in those costs, the government, through appointed doctors and health care officials, is going to want to play an advisory role in those decisions. I also believe the "death panel" is exaggerated, political language, but is par for the course in politics. Democrats have often accused Republicans of wanting to starve children when proposing cuts in the expansion of school lunch program spending. That type of hyperbole is to be expected in these discussions. Would I call Obama's advisory boards that? No, but I do believe the law of unintended consequences most often affects government programs. I do not think it would ever reach the level of what I would call a "death panel."

I wouldn't classify Louis as a high profile liberal. I was referring to the other two with that. No, neither of them would be as high profile as Palin, but you simply asked for liberals who had said that. I gave you some. I also do not believe that every liberal believes that the image was racist, but I do believe that many liberals (particularly those in high profile positions) will use the fact that some consider it racist or at least borderline to their advantage. (I also think many in the GOP would do the same if given the chance.) The Speaker of the House is pretty high profile and she referred to health care protesters as "brown shirts", etc. I can give you tons of links for high profile elected Democrat officials calling those who disagree publicly with the proposals as Nazis, thugs, mobs, etc. As I said to Cin, I think, unfortunately, both sides do this. I've basically accepted that as an unavoidable fact. I wish we could move past racism, Nazi comparisons and death panels, but each side has to respond with the knowledge of the crazies on both sides. Just like many on the right believe the worst about liberals, many on the left believe the worst about the right – lied to go to war, intentionally didn't help Katrina victims, knew about 9/11, etc. Most honest, smart liberals don't accept those crazy conspiracy theories, but enough do that I have to spend time responding to them. Most conservatives don't believe the worst about liberals, but enough do that you have to do the same.

Hi aaron: About nancy pelosi and the "brownshirts' comment: she was explicitly referring to people who came to forums and shouted down their Comgressman instead of discussing the issues. For some of those the point seemed to be to create a scene, not to gain understanding. I'd say that's been the complaint of all the high profile liberals. And that's been my problem as well. There is nothing inherently wrong with disagreeing with liberals about the proper role of government, nor of asking challenging questions to your elected officials. But when people try to shout down their oppponents that's just wrong–whether or not it comes from the left or the right it's anti-american. your friend keith keith

"Because it is crazy. It is horrible interpretation of the Bible and it makes a mistake in the first few seconds of the video that a person who took intro to the New Testament in college would catch." Like I said though, even your partner Seeker thinks it's interesting. The only reason he put forth that's it's not true is that Obama isn't European. Other than that, he seems to agree with the translation."I don't think so. I think many, but not all, evangelical Christians disagree with his policies." They do disagree with his policies but many also think he is the antichrist. I wonder how prevalent this is. I wonder because many evangelical Christians, also believe that the Earth is approximately 10k years old, believe witchcraft exists (the supernatural kind), and 45% of republicans believe Obama will impose "death panels" to decide if grandma should be unplugged. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, they believe this nonsense. So, I don't put it past them to believe that Obama is the antichrist. Heck, the fact that they even believe there is an antichrist should signify how wacked out they are."I suppose I could answer that with a question: Do you believe Bush intentionally lied to start a war with Iraq?" Of course. Don't you? They said Saddam has WMD. He didn't. The Bush administration led us believe he did though. So, we went to war… for WMD. Remember, my younger brother served in Iraq."Democrats have often accused Republicans of wanting to starve children when proposing cuts in the expansion of school lunch program spending." The Aaron defense strikes again. Louis did a good job of debunking it already.

Perhaps she was only referring to those who shout. Perhaps Clyburn was only referencing those who carrying Nazi signs when he said it was like the ones who attacked those marching for civil rights. Perhaps they were the only target when Reid spoke of "evil-mongers." But then why does the whole movement get brushed with that tar? Just like with Maddow's astroturfing mantra, if she finds one person who used to work for some GOP person and a conservative organization then that speaks against the whole protest movement. I think any idiot that yells and prevents any type of real discussion on the issue is doing a disservice to the cause they claim to support, but I also think ratcheting up the rhetoric by throwing Nazi references around is just as much a disservice. The left seems to be shocked by the Nazi imagery against Obama (as an aside I am as well), but fails to recognize that those behind that are LaRoche wackos on the far left/right. Many also do not seem to have problems with the same terminology being used against those they disagree with. You have to be specific about your target and it seems to me that the Democrat elected officials are being purposefully vague. That way they can claim innocence, while making some cheap points with their radical base. The same way GOP officials did in calling for a birther legislation.

Like I said though, even your partner Seeker thinks it's interesting. Again, I'll let Daniel speak for himself, but from my perspective the entire thing is idiotic bunk. It is a conspiracy theory that both sides abound in and is not peculiar to Obama.I wonder how prevalent this is. That's a good question. One which either of us know the answer to, but which I would have a more educated guess as I am surrounded and have more intimate contact with evangelicals than you. I'm glad you have went from claiming that the majority of evangelicals believe Obama is the antichrist to expressing your own ignorance of the answer. As there is no polling data, we are all ignorant of the answer.Despite all the evidence to the contrary, they believe this nonsense. Not the time or the place to debate all those topics, but you have condemned the vast majority of Americans and the world to being essentially stupid. Some Christians are finally beginning to realize that in the postmodern setting smug self-assuredness is not appealing. Some atheists have also learned that lesson. Others? Not so much.Of course. Don't you? They said Saddam has WMD. He didn't. So the only explanation can be that he lied (for what reason?) to go to war. It couldn't be that we, and the rest of the world, had bad intelligence or any number of other things. It HAS to be that my political opponent is so evil that he would intentionally lie, send Americans and Iraqis to their deaths because he felt like lying and starting a war. I'm thankful for brave men, like your brother, and women who serve in our Armed Forces and who served in the line of fire. They deserve our utmost respect and honor. However, simply because we may have someone who served in a war does not give us ultimate moral authority to make any claims we want to about the war. My best friend was in Iraq. My dad was in Vietnam. My uncle was in the first Gulf War. Virtually everyone has family and friends that served. We should honor them, but their service does not make us (or even them) automatically right in our opinions of the war. If you feel that is the case are you willing to say that McCain and Palin (and Biden for that matter) know more about the war than Obama since they have children who are serving and have served. Being close to someone serving does give you a certain perspective on the conflict (as I'm sure you know), but it does not equate to automatically being right.The Aaron defense strikes again. Louis did a good job of debunking it already. I'm glad that you and Louis feel as if you can deploy a cute rhetorical trick to avoid being consistent on issues. Louis never "debunked it." Louis pulls it out when I demonstrate that something he is complaining about the right doing, he had no problem with when the left was doing the same thing. But perhaps I can explain this one more time. Louis has claimed that the "Aaron defense" amounts to "you did it, so I can do it, too." That's not what I claimed in any of the debates that you two have pulled up that canard. What I was stating here in this discussion is that the type of hyperbolic language is often used in politics by both sides. You can disagree with it and complain about it if you'd like. I do, but I also recognize that it is a political reality. But what you can't do is engage in it or applaud it's use by your side, but then express outrage when the other side does it back. You can't sit back while liberals scream Bush=Hitler for 8 years and never say a thing, but all of a sudden grow a principled objection to Nazi imagery directed toward elected officials especially the President. If you didn't criticize it before, you can't criticize it now and call it a principle. It is instead a political concern because the target has shifted to someone with whom you agree.

"Just like with Maddow's astroturfing mantra, if she finds one person who used to work for some GOP person and a conservative organization then that speaks against the whole protest movement." This is hyperbole. Maddow found not just 1 but many. How many republican operatives did she ferret out in the Brooks Brothers "Riot?" 8 of 12 in the photo? More than one I think."Democrat elected officials" Grammar police alert. The proper term is "Democratic" not "Democrat" This error is akin to me saying "Republic elected officials.""I'm glad you have went from claiming that the majority of evangelicals believe Obama is the antichrist to expressing your own ignorance of the answer." You're wrong. You will have to grant that it could be 51%, 75%, 90%, etc. I'd still be able to ask how prevalent it is while still maintaining it's a majority of conservative evangelicals. You will also grant that the majority of conservative evangelicals believe that an antichrist exists."…you have condemned the vast majority of Americans and the world to being essentially stupid." First of all, the majority of the world is not Christian, but non-Christian. So, that's one misconception corrected. Second, I didn't call the majority of Americans stupid. The majority of Americans are not ignorant creationists/biblical literalists who believe the antichrist is coming."It couldn't be that we, and the rest of the world, had bad intelligence or any number of other things." We had good intelligence. Even the U.N. inspectors said that Sadaam had no WMD. But, Bush ignored them."However, simply because we may have someone who served in a war does not give us ultimate moral authority to make any claims we want to about the war." I'm not making any claims just giving you the facts underlying what I believe happened. You don't seem to dispute the facts and you did ask me what I believed. "They said Saddam has WMD. He didn't. The Bush administration led us believe he did though. So, we went to war… for WMD." Given the facts, I'm surprised you don't draw a similar conclusion."…it does not equate to automatically being right." I should hope not, Aaron. Wouldn't it seem silly to you if someone actually said that they knew someone in Iraq therefore they are automatically right in their opinions. Now THAT would be stupid."You can't sit back while liberals scream Bush=Hitler for 8 years and never say a thing, but all of a sudden grow a principled objection to Nazi imagery directed toward elected officials especially the President." Liberals and the "liberal media" have condemned comparisons of Bush to Hitler. I have too. Though W. Bush is a dangerously ignorant and stupid man who tortured people and started unnecessary wars that resulted in a lot of people dead, IMO, he's no Hitler. My source if interested: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individ… Want some concrete proof that the press has treated this media Nazi story differently than the Hitler-MoveOn kerfuffle in 2004?…http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/23246"It is instead a political concern because the target has shifted to someone with whom you agree." I know you think more of me than that so I'm going to assume you are just venting frustration here.

Not enough time to respond to everything, but I do want to apologize for my unclear use of the general "you" and the confusion it causes when it seems to be speaking of "you" specifically. I've done that several times here and it is unintentional. Sorry.

Want some concrete proof that the press has treated this media Nazi story differently than the Hitler-MoveOn kerfuffle in 2004? The MoveOn story was an instance of sensationalistic propaganda and imagery, Limbaugh is generally rooting his arguments in historical facts about fascism which anyone can verify. If the media reported more on the links between the progressive and fascist movements historically or the link between national healthcare and National Socialism they would only be stirring up controversy and drawing attention to facts which would hurt progressives.

Also, Limbaugh himself admitted that he was merely stooping to Pelosi's level, returning in kind the type of idiocy she spewed. So part of Limbaugh's Nazi accusations are based, as mynym said, on historical similarities, Rush was emboldened to make such radical comparisons because Pelosi lied to the public, intimating that her OPPONENTS were Nazi's. So Rush shot back that if anyone was more like the Nazi party, it was not the common people, but the corrupt government leaders who are trying to push 'national socialism' on us.

Read "the Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich:" and you'll see that Hitler's Nazis were ANTI-leftists. They opposed workers organizing to protect their rights, they considered the Left to be their enemies. As I remember, MoveOn did not compare Bush to Hitler. MoveOn had a contest to produce an anti-Bush ad and one of the contestants used Nazi imagery to condemn invading countries that are not threating anyone, against wars of choice. The ad didn't win the contest, if I remember correctly. But even so, this is somewhat different from comparing Obama to Hitler because of a crazy misinterpretation of the House health care bill. your friend Keith

I love how Cineaste with a wave of his hand decides that things are debunked and decided, without referrence to counter evidence or presenting his own AND at the same time says he doesn't need support to assert that a majority of evangelicals believe Obama is the Antichrist it just is SO. You could start by addressing the Obama quote that I provided from the April NYTimes interview. Then explain to me how Obama has managed to surround himself with medical advisors who favor cost cutting with elderly care (Daschle's book is quite interesting, as is John Holdrens, as is Rham's brother's). Then you could address this:http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?… I'm happy to follow the truth where ever it leads, but a grand declaration from Cineaste on teh intarwebs doesn't really cut it for me. Keith, how do you define left and right? There's no question that NAZI's had enemies on the left. But you do know what the acronym NAZI stands for, right? Just because a left group hates on other lefties, doesn't make them right.

Hi James: I define "left/right" based on rich/not-rich. The industrialist class supports the rightist parties, the organized working class support leftist parties. The left/right spectrum is inapplicable for some political disputes (some environmental issues, for example, and the dispute between social liberals and social conservatives). There WERE some in the Nazi Party in its early days who took the socialism of National Socialism seriously–but they were violently purged from the Party by Hitler. The German industrialists supported Hitler, and was generally considered part of the right wing. your friend Keith

>> KEITH: Hitler's Nazis were ANTI-leftists. They opposed workers organizing to protect their rights, they considered the Left to be their enemies. 1. Stalinism was to the left of Hitler, so they could be his enemies. That doesn't make him 'right' just because he is just this side of uberSocialism. From National Socialism:

The movement was based on anti-Semitism, anti-Marxism and hyper-nationalism,

2. Anyone who disagreed w/ Hitler was his enemy. So he had enemies on his left AND right. 3. People often use their own definitions of left/right – as I see, yours have to do primarily with economic classes, not ideology.National Socialism (Nazism) is clearly a leftist ideology mixed with Darwinism and anti-Semitism – a deadly cocktail of wicked, misinformed ideologies.

As a generic concept, National Socialism opposes capitalism, communism, Democratic Socialism and liberalism.[1] It also opposes certain nations, ethnicities and other groups that are deemed to be enemies of the specific ethnicity to which it is applied.

>> KEITH: The industrialist class supports the rightist parties, the organized working class support leftist parties. I think wikipedia has it more accurately, I think – see Right-wing. But I would agree with you if what you mean is that the right supports the free market, while the left 'favors the working class' through wealth redistribution (economic 'justice', a.k.a. socialism). But I agree, Hitler largely employed right-wing values such as appeals to nationalism and 'values.' He was not a left-wing socialist like Mussolini. Comparisons of Obama to Hitler are not really accurate, though comparison of his policies to failed socialist views seems appropriate to me. To see how similar or dissimilar Nazism is from Obama policies (they are pretty dissimilar), see Full Text of the 25 Point Program of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Much of it is racial, but much of it is leftist anti-capitalism. For exaample:

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery. (that is, elimination of interest income) 12. personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits. 13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts). (nationalization of industry, definitely not 'right' 15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare. 16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality. 18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race. (death to capitalists!) 23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. (anti free-press, that's not 'right')

The real problem is that 'liberal democratic' in the older parlance really represents the views of todays' neo conservatives, not the current Democratic liberals who have moved to the socialist left. The Kennedy Democrat has been replaced by the Socialist kind. That's why so many Democrats of the baby boomer age (who haven't drifted left w/ their party) are now independent or even Republican. Suffice it to say, I think that Hitler had nationalism in common with today's rightists (today's left is almost against the ideas that made us free and great, if not apologetic for asserting their superiority), but he had economics in common more with today's liberal party.

Hi Daniel: A couple of points: 1. I do see left/right as a function of ideology. I would say that an ideology that takes sides with the economically less powerful is left, the opposite is right. The 25 point Nazi program you cited (which was written in 1920, long before the Nazis gained power) was a left program. I previously noted that there WERE Nazis who took the socialist part seriously, but Hitler did not. I believe that Hitler was c onsidered to be a right wing figure at the time. Hitler's pro-industrialist, anti-organized labor government policies were not in any way leftist. 2. Stalinist Communism was considered to be left. Some on the western left were sypathetic to Stalinist Russia. 3. Since moderns who consider themsleves of the right do not harbor Nazi views and since leftists do not harbor stalinist views, the whole argument is silly. 4. I would not agree that Kennedy liberalism is distinct from Obama liberalism. Kennedy suported government intervention in the economy AND Keynsian economic stimulus. Kennedy would have supported FDR's New Deal. Obama's stimulus package was just standard Keynsian economics. your friend Keith

>> KEITH: I do see left/right as a function of ideology. I would say that an ideology that takes sides with the economically less powerful is left, the opposite is right. For the sake of argument, let’s say that both sides have some merit. I think I would like to evaluate each in terms of at least 5 parameters: 1. Intent 2. Goals 3. Means 4. Priorities 5 Balancing principles that keep them from extremes. Your presentation alludes to a deficit on the rigth which I think does not exist, and seems to be talking primarily of intent and goals. Saying that liberals ‘side with the less powerful’ and the right does the opposite is like me saying that ‘the right sides with a free market, the opposite of the left.’ I think both of these statements are incorrect. My main point is that it is not like the left is compassionate and the right is not (as you implied) – it is more about MEANS to common ends where we disagree. I would make such statements as: INTENT: I don’t think our intents vary that much, but perhaps they do. Liberals: compassion – to help the poor and powerless Conservatives: freedom – to help the individual, both poor and rich, to succeed MEANS: Here is the main sticking point, imo Liberals: To help the poor and powerless through providing unfair advantage without the need for initiative Conservatives: To help the poor and powerless through providing fair opportunity for accomplishment and initiative Liberals: Taxing the successful to enforce compassion for the less successful. Increasing the size and scope of government programs in buildling an equitable society Conservatives: Rewarding initiative, success, and philanthropy throught REDUCED taxes. Decreasing the size and scope of government programs in order to build a successful and FREE society PRIORITIES: Related to means, but perhaps a different point. I think that conservatives agree with a narrow and circumscribed interpretation of the constitution, one that beleives that the government is LIMITED in it’s role. Great minds have discussed this, but to cover these briefly, from the Preamble to the United States Constitution

Establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterit

I know we could wrangle over what these terms mean, but in light of the Bill of Rights which is meant to LIMIT government power and intervention in the lives of the people, I think each of the above terms should be viewed with as narrow an application as possible, else we get sprawling government all over again. 1. Establish justice – I think this is mainly to punish evildoers and reward good. This does not include ‘economic justice’ in the form of welfare, nor many other broader forms of ‘justice’ that open the door to government control of problems which could be better taken care of by a less invasive form of government involvement (e.g. labeling instead of regulation, or regulation instead of direct control and government administration and ownership of programs like education and healthcare). 2. Ensure domestic tranquility – again, merely peacekeeping. Police, national guard, military. 3. Promote the general welfare – note that this says ‘promote’ not ‘provide for’ – the difference here is VAST. Promotion of, for example, home ownership, has been done well for years by giving mortgage interest tax breaks. But as soon as we get the FannieMae’s in the picture, and the liberal push for ‘equality of housing regardless of economic fitness of the borrower’, we go beyond promoting to providing, which is, as we have seen, NOT sustainable, if not DISASTROUS. I do think this is a clear and unambiguous example of how liberal MEANS fail in the real world because they are MISTAKEN in their view of the role of government, and their UNBIBLICAL and UNSOUND disdain for free market principles. They also must eschew their ‘handout’ mentality towards the poor, lest the perpetuate the ‘liberal plantation’ effect – people led into dependence instead of self-sufficiency. I am not arguing for an unstrained free market per se, only for an understanding the the goverment can not solve many of the problems with the free market, which involve personal responsibility and hard work on one hand, and ethical behavior on the other. When it comes to personal ethics and morality, the government ought to ‘promote’ the organizations that do do this, like the Churches, through such things as tax benefits (which we do). Trying to ‘provide’ for justice through such unjust and counter-productive means as reverse disrimination (quotas and affirmative action) and penalizing the successful (which keeps them from investing, which in turn kills the economy) JUST DOESN’T WORK. 4. SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY: I’m not sure all of what this means, but I bet it means not taking our inheritance through the death tax. If one of the blessings of liberty is the ability to protect myself, I bet it does not include taking away my guns either. But I digress. This long response is to say just one thing – the right is not anti-compassion any more than the left is anti-freedom and free markets. However, I do think that your means and priorities are different, and I think that our current economy is ‘reality mugging us’ – reality disproving leftist economics. It is truly said “a neo-conservative is merely a liberal who has been mugged by reality.”

>> KEITH: 2. Stalinist Communism was considered to be left. Some on the western left were sypathetic to Stalinist Russia. Absolutely, and today's American left shares some of those sympathies, hence the comparisons. >> KEITH: 3. Since moderns who consider themsleves of the right do not harbor Nazi views and since leftists do not harbor stalinist views, the whole argument is silly. I don't think that this is entirely true. The only thing that conservatives share with Hitler is an avowed support for industry and a strong nationalism. Jingoism aside, no liberal is really against these things. Any other association with the 'right' is fabrication, imo. However, I think that the welfare state that liberals support, including their penalization of successful companies through what amount to punitive taxes, IS eerily leaning into socialist thought and practice. As we saw in Communist Russia, these schemes destroyed personal initiative, rewarded laziness and incompetence, and eliminated innovation. This is EXACTLY what big government 'economic justice' creates. It removes reward for initiative, incentivizes government dependence, and takes away freedom. I DO think that comparisons of either side to Hitler are inaccurate. I do NOT think that comparison of Obamanomics to socialism are unfair or unfounded.

Hi Daniel: Continuing the discussion: KEITH: 2. Stalinist Communism was considered to be left. Some on the western left were sypathetic to Stalinist Russia.Absolutely, and today's American left shares some of those sympathies, hence the comparisons. I doubt there are any Stalinists in America. There are about 6 Maoists. There are probably a million or more Fidelistas. But out of 300 million or so, the American left is nowhere NEAR sympathetic to StalinISM.KEITH: 3. Since moderns who consider themsleves of the right do not harbor Nazi views and since leftists do not harbor stalinist views, the whole argument is silly.I don't think that this is entirely true. The only thing that conservatives share with Hitler is an avowed support for industry and a strong nationalism. Jingoism aside, no liberal is really against these things. Any other association with the 'right' is fabrication, imo. I don't think Nazi comparisons are fair even for fairly nationalistic conservatives. I oppose jingoism, and as a Christian my first loyalty has to be to God, not to country. I am definitely not a nationalist. But IMO nationalism isn't inherently offensive–Nazism is.However, I think that the welfare state that liberals support, including their penalization of successful companies through what amount to punitive taxes, IS eerily leaning into socialist thought and practice. As we saw in Communist Russia, these schemes destroyed personal initiative, rewarded laziness and incompetence, and eliminated innovation. This is EXACTLY what big government 'economic justice' creates. I think the gulf between Soviet Communism and welfare state liberalism is so great as to constitute a QUALITATIVE difference. The comparison is like saying that since drinking 1000 gallons of water inone sitting is extremely unhealthy, drinking 8 ounces is a little unhealthy. The reason Soviet Communism destroyed personal initiative etc. is because there was NO AVENUE AT ALL for entrepreneurial activity and earning more by working more. On welfare state liberalism there are plenty of opportunities to better yourself with hard work and initiative and ingenuity. Progressive taxes do not punish people who make more money–it is never the case that a person makes less money by earning more than she would if she worked less.It removes reward for initiative, incentivizes government dependence, and takes away freedom. The welfare state with progressive taxes does none of those things. If you are a businessman you will always make more money than otherwise if you can build a better mousetrap there is still reward for building a better mousetrap. Paying taxes doesn't take away your freedom any more than paying rent takes away your freedom–taxes are in effect the rent you pay for living in our great country. Incentivizing government dependence? Only when CONSERVATIVE eligibility rules are applied to recipients of safety net payments. When you are TOO afraid that some money will get to the non-deserving poor you tend to create rules that make it harder for people to move from welfare to work. I had a student once whose drug addict ex husband quit paying child support. She applied for AFDC and was told: to sell her truck for $5000 (she couldn't get that much) to live on that for 10 months ($5000 wouldn't pay the rent, child care and food) THEN come back and apply when she really needed the money. In other words, the Riverside County welfare office decided to metaphorically amputate her legs before they would provide any aid. With a truck she could go to school and work, with welfare she could pay for housing, food and childcare so she could eventually get off the dole. If the government had seen her as an investment instead of cost to be cut, she'd have been less dependent.I DO think that comparisons of either side to Hitler are inaccurate. I do NOT think that comparison of Obamanomics to socialism are unfair or unfounded. I'd say that unless your definition of socialism is extremely broad, so broad that there is a qualitative difference even between Obama "socialism" and the kind of democratic socialism envisioned by self-declared socialists, the comparison is quite unfounded. It seems to me conservative use of the term "socialism" is tar liberalism with the Soviet Communist brush. It doesn't clarify anything nor advance your argument against it. You might as well slam the founding fathers version of democratic republicanism because East Germany called it self the German Democratic Republic. your friend Keith >

Hi Daniel: Thanks for continuing the discussion. From before:KEITH: I do see left/right as a function of ideology. I would say that an ideology that takes sides with the economically less powerful is left, the opposite is right.For the sake of argument, let’s say that both sides have some merit. I think I would like to evaluate each in terms of at least 5 parameters: 1. Intent 2. Goals 3. Means 4. Priorities 5 Balancing principles that keep them from extremes. …Saying that liberals ‘side with the less powerful’ and the right does the opposite is like me saying that ‘the right sides with a free market, the opposite of the left.’ I am not trying to accuse people who see themselves on the right as less compassionate than those of us on the left. I am really only trying to come up with a categorization that is consistent over history. Truth be told I am not all that into classifying beliefs. I’d rather just look at the specifics and evaluate from there. I believe that the original free marketeers (John Stuart Mill for example) would have been considered Left, whereas the supporters of monarchy would have been considered Right. Small ‘d’ democrats were Left, supporters of aristocracy were Right.I think both of these statements are incorrect. My main point is that it is not like the left is compassionate and the right is not (as you implied) – it is more about MEANS to common ends where we disagree. I think our disagreement might be at least somewhat about ends too, but since I know some selfish, hard hearted leftists I will NOT claim that Left=compassionate while Right=not.I would make such statements as: INTENT: I don’t think our intents vary that much, but perhaps they do. I think they might differ in certain areas. I think that UNLESS THERE IS A GOOD ECONOMIC REASON, there should be nearly complete economic equality (I do think that extra EFFORT should ideally be rewarded, but if two people expend the same effort I think that ideally they should be paid the same). You might disagree with this value, even aside from your belief that there IS a good economic reason for inequality.Liberals: compassion – to help the poor and powerless Conservatives: freedom – to help the individual, both poor and rich, to succeed< .i> I’d say liberals are interested in more than the POOR–we believe that the present system is tilted toward the rich and we think the rules need to be adjusted to shift the balance toward the non-rich. It seems to me that you conservatives believe your policies will benefit both rich and non.MEANS: Here is the main sticking point, imo Liberals: To help the poor and powerless through providing unfair advantage without the need for initiative Conservatives: To help the poor and powerless through providing fair opportunity for accomplishment and initiative I disagree with your formulation above, obviously. What I see is the free market system provides unfair advantage to the rich. The free market system is ALSO a useful way to organize production, so we have to counter-balance it with the welfare state.Liberals: Taxing the successful to enforce compassion for the less successful. I must object. Redistributive taxing is NOT a way to enforce compassion. The person who pays taxes is not asked to be compassionate–he is only asked to pay what he owes in taxes.Increasing the size and scope of government programs in buildling an equitable society Not necessarily. Reagan vs. the Dems back then is a good example. Reagan and the Dems proposed budgets of similar sizes, with the money spent of different things. But i don’t need to quibble–I’d be happy enough if the government share of GDP were higher with government spending that on stuff it doesn’t spend on now.Conservatives: Rewarding initiative, success, and philanthropy throught REDUCED taxes. Decreasing the size and scope of government programs in order to build a successful and FREE society I would disagree that low taxes means less freedom; government programs that improve the economic well being of the non-rich INCREASES their freedom. I would also disagree that high taxes punish success. In a welfare state, being successful always pays more than not being successful, so there is always a reward for success.PRIORITIES: Related to means, but perhaps a different point. I think that conservatives agree with a narrow and circumscribed interpretation of the constitution, one that beleives that the government is LIMITED in it’s role. Great minds have discussed this, but to cover these briefly, from the Preamble to the United States Constitution Establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterit I know we could wrangle over what these terms mean, but in light of the Bill of Rights which is meant to LIMIT government power and intervention in the lives of the people, I think each of the above terms should be viewed with as narrow an application as possible, else we get sprawling government all over again. I would say welfare state liberalism falls within those limits. I disagree with you here. There is nothing in the word “justice” that precludes liberal views of economic justice.2. Ensure domestic tranquility – again, merely peacekeeping. Police, national guard, military. Also, eliminating some of the causes of domestic strife–too much inequality for example.3. Promote the general welfare – note that this says ‘promote’ not ‘provide for’ – the difference here is VAST. Promotion of, for example, home ownership, has been done well for years by giving mortgage interest tax breaks. But as soon as we get the FannieMae’s in the picture, and the liberal push for ‘equality of housing regardless of economic fitness of the borrower’, we go beyond promoting to providing, which is, as we have seen, NOT sustainable, if not DISASTROUS. We’ve been round and round on the cause of the housing bubble & collapse thereof–I’d say it wasn’t liberal economic policies that caused the problem. But we needen’t get back into that nest. I would say that government safety net programs DO promote the general welfare, thus they are consistent the constitution. I’d say welfare state liberalism falls well within the constraints you mention above.When it comes to personal ethics and morality, the government ought to ‘promote’ the organizations that do do this, like the Churches, through such things as tax benefits (which we do). Trying to ‘provide’ for justice through such unjust and counter-productive means as reverse disrimination (quotas and affirmative action) and penalizing the successful (which keeps them from investing, which in turn kills the economy) JUST DOESN’T WORK. I have to repeat myself: in welfare state liberalism success is not penalized! More success ALWAYS means more income in welfare state economics. Affirmative action is too complex to deal with here; I;d just say that in a society where blacks and browns are systematically discriminated AGAINST in the free market, effective government action to prevent that is perfectly appropriate. I’d say that affirmative action does NOT systematically discriminate against white males.4. SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY: I’m not sure all of what this means, but I bet it means not taking our inheritance through the death tax. If one of the blessings of liberty is the ability to protect myself, I bet it does not include taking away my guns either. I do not agree that banning guns and taxing inheritance counts as taking away your Liberty, no more at least that banning burglary takes away the liberty of burglars. BTW I am NOT saying that gun owners and heirs are criminals. That’s not my point at all.But I digress. This long response is to say just one thing – the right is not anti-compassion any more than the left is anti-freedom and free markets. However, I do think that your means and priorities are different, and I think that our current economy is ‘reality mugging us’ – reality disproving leftist economics. It is truly said “a neo-conservative is merely a liberal who has been mugged by reality.” I guess it won’t shock you that I draw a different conclusion. What I get from the current economy is that free markets with too much inequality and insufficient regulation are inherently unstable–they are ticking time bombs waiting to explode. The economic collapse was just such an explosion and the way to prevent future explosions is for government to regulate MORE, which is to say allow LESS market freedom, and to promote more equality. your friend Keith

>> KEITH: I am really only trying to come up with a categorization that is consistent over history. Truth be told I am not all that into classifying beliefs. Me too. It’s not that simple! Truth be told, I DO like to organize, classify, and define the tenets and limits of various world views. So thanks for hanging in. >> KEITH: I believe that the original free marketeers (John Stuart Mill for example) would have been considered Left, whereas the supporters of monarchy would have been considered Right. Small ‘d’ democrats were Left, supporters of aristocracy were Right. I think, though, what has happened, is that the definitions have shifted through various historical events since then. I suspect that’s where the confusion begins. >> KEITH: I think that UNLESS THERE IS A GOOD ECONOMIC REASON, there should be nearly complete economic equality (I do think that extra EFFORT should ideally be rewarded, but if two people expend the same effort I think that ideally they should be paid the same). The very principle that effort should be rewarded, in my mind, pretty much negates the possibility of economic equality (unless you can secure equal effort, which is impossible). The preservation of reward for risk and effort pretty much negates a even economic distribution in any real world. That is not to say that with power, some inequities and unfair practices can enter that protect the powerful, and I agree that such laws as anti-monopoly laws, fair hiring and pay for equal work, are good safeguards. But they can only guarantee that the unfair practices are limited – they can not account for the economic inqeuities due to lack of character, virtue, and hard work. This is the mistake of such things as affirmative action – they work AGAINST the principle of fair reward for effort. >> KEITH: we believe that the present system is tilted toward the rich and we think the rules need to be adjusted to shift the balance toward the non-rich. Perhaps they are, in the ways I mentioned above that are UNJUST. But there will always be an imbalance due to the imbalances of values and character of individuals that YOU CAN NOT FIX without changing said values, which the govt can not do, but the church should. >> KEITH: It seems to me that you conservatives believe your policies will benefit both rich and non. Absolutely. We believe that hard work, perseverance and a little luck, and ANYONE can succeed in one generation – look at Obama. I don’t think that penalizing the successful is a way to make the poor successful. I think that liberal policies do exactly that, in the name of compassion – again, right intent, illegitimate means. >> KEITH: What I see is the free market system provides unfair advantage to the rich. It does provide an advantage to those who through risk and hard work have succeeded, and perhaps passed that on to their children. But that is not unfair – in fact, it is perfectly fair. >> KEITH: Redistributive taxing is NOT a way to enforce compassion. It is if it falls outside of the bounds that the constitution set for the government, and if the means that it is applied to, which I think the welfare state, beyond a limited function, does. >> KEITH: The person who pays taxes is not asked to be compassionate–he is only asked to pay what he owes in taxes. That’s just doubletalk. There are principles in the constitution (and the bible ;) that define what he owes to Cesar, AND WHAT HE DOES NOT. This is why, for instance, secularists fight against federal dollars going to religious schools – would you tell them ‘that’s just what you owe in taxes’? No. >> KEITH: Reagan and the Dems proposed budgets of similar sizes, with the money spent of different things. I don’t remember, but I suspect that Reagan was ‘providing for the common DEFENSE,’ something clearly outlined as civil government’s responsibility. Welfare, not so much. >> KEITH: I would disagree that low taxes means less [sic] freedom; government programs that improve the economic well being of the non-rich INCREASES their freedom. Yes, but freedom comes with responsibility, and taking from the accomplished to give to those who have NOT earned it is not only unfair, it is penalizing the good. Your logic seems to say “if we take away freedom from the rich and give it to the poor to make them more free, that’s just fine.” I entirely disagree. I agree that the poor man benefits from such philanthropy, but forcing the successful to be generous is not freedom, it’s Marxism. >> KEITH: In a welfare state, being successful always pays more than not being successful, so there is always a reward for success. Yes, but if your high taxation creates barriers to success and increases risk, you kill your economy bc people with money will not take those higher risks – there comes a point where the risk does NOT outweigh the benefit. LOWERING the risk means more investment, more risk, and more success. To fake some numbers, 10% of $1M (100,000) in taxes is way better than 30% of $100,000. In reality, it can be argued that this is exactly what happens – profits go up so much higher in a ‘business-friendly’ environment, that tax revenues are greater even w/ the lesser percentage. Basically, I think that your argument is killing the goose that lays the golden egg. You want more eggs up front instead of keeping the goose healthy, and you end up killing it. >> KEITH: There is nothing in the word “justice” that precludes liberal views of economic justice. If you want equitable pay for equal jobs, you should also want equitable reward for risk and hard work. Your system violates the latter. >> KEITH: I would say that government safety net programs DO promote the general welfare, thus they are consistent the constitution. Because they are not economically sustainable, they give the ILLUSION of helping, and may in the short run. But in the long run, our children pay for it. This is unwise. >> KEITH: I’d say that affirmative action does NOT systematically discriminate against white males. You have got to be kidding. The number of equally or superior candidates refused college entry or jobs due to their skin color (discrimination) are legion. Check out such articles as Stanford Magazine’s The Case Against Affirmative Action. Not that we need to argue that specific example, but just to say that I think this is just ONE CLEAR example of liberal injustice and foolishness disguised as the opposite. And I don’t mean that pejoratively. >> KEITH: I do not agree that banning guns and taxing inheritance counts as taking away your Liberty, no more at least that banning burglary takes away the liberty of burglars So you think that owning guns and passing on inheritance is criminal? Our forefathers gave us the right to bear arms for a timeless reason. >> KEITH: What I get from the current economy is that free markets with too much inequality and insufficient regulation are inherently unstable This is the exact argument of the Stalinist. Because freedom’s achilles heel is the virtue of it’s participants, in order to avoid this problem, we must take away freedom in order to have ‘stability’. And while the latter is true, the thing to do to restore freedom is not to push for more external government. Rather than trading our freedom for stability, we need to promote and reward virtue. And government can only ‘promote’ not provide virtues like compassion and honesty, as I said. This is, imo, the liberal error. It allows government to overstep its bounds, usurping the responsibility of the other Five Spheres of Government. >> KEITH: I doubt there are any Stalinists in America. I didn’t say there were. >> KEITH: I think the gulf between Soviet Communism and welfare state liberalism is so great as to constitute a QUALITATIVE difference. As much as i hate slippery slope arguments, and I somewhat agree with you, I think that the current forays in that direction are already producing the fruits of failure that Communism displayed in spades. When we see injustices like affirmative action and hand-out welfare based on non-sustainable economic utopian dreams, the signs of being too far to the left are already there, even if we are not ‘Qualitatively’ to the point of killing dissenters. It does not need to go that far to be economically and socially destructive. I think that the current economy bears that out in some small portion, even if you believe that the current involvencies of Social Security, Medicare, and the banking industries aren’t the fault of liberal economics. >>KEITH: The reason Soviet Communism destroyed personal initiative etc. is because there was NO AVENUE AT ALL for entrepreneurial activity and earning more by working more. This reminds me of the Christian who justifies just a little sin because he’s not full-on sinning. I think that moving this direction does NOT have real benefits (except temporal ones that fail long term, like pyramid schemes). >> KEITH: The welfare state with progressive taxes does none of those things I will never view progressive taxation as ‘just’ – a flat tax with exemption for the poor is just. It’s just doubletalk, if you ask me. BUT it’s not the progressive TAXATION that makes the liberal welfare state unfair, it’s the ‘hand out’ instead of a hand-up nature of it. It MUST reward initiative or be doomed to failure. This is why books like Emancipation from the Liberal Plantation have been written – because liberal style welfare, beyond being economically unsustainable and inhibiting the economy, PRODUCE DEPENDENCE. >> KEITH: Paying taxes doesn’t take away your freedom any more than paying rent takes away your freedom Again, I am not against paying taxes. I am against using them for these unjust, unconstitutional, and ubiblical social engineering projects WHICH WORK POORLY. Secondarily, I am against OVER taxation, which you don’t seem to think is possible. But let me ask – how do you define “too much” taxation? If you don’t limit it by the constitution, how do you limit it. I am amazed that we give more than 10 percent of our income to the govt – I mean, that’s all that Almighty God asks for. >> KEITH: When you are TOO afraid that some money will get to the non-deserving poor you tend to create rules that make it harder for people to move from welfare to work. That is true, but no system is perfect, esp. a government program. There must be a balance here, since you get gross injustice if you go too far either way. I think our current system, fraught with fraud and dependence (a terrible injustice played upon today’s poor, esp. African Americans), is way too far to the left. >> KEITH: I’d say that unless your definition of socialism is extremely broad, so broad that there is a qualitative difference even between Obama “socialism” and the kind of democratic socialism envisioned by self-declared socialists, the comparison is quite unfounded. It is perhaps broader than you would like, if for no other reason than you proably don’t like the comparison. But I don’t think that us conservatives make the comparison merely to smear you with guilt by association – as I said, i think that the fruits of injustice, economic unsustainability and downturn, and state dependence are evidence of socialist principles in action (and failing) – you do not have to be a Marxist to putrefy our freedom and success with the less openly diabolical practices of the ‘real thing.’

Hi Daniel: You make several points that I'd like to address: 1. You call welfare state forced compassion. But compassion includes actually caring about the people you help. Welfare state redistribution doesn't ask tax payers to care, all it asks is that they pay the taxes they owe. I don['t agree with you that welfare state redistribution is contra the Constitution, but that has nothing at all to do with the compassion question as you seemed to say. Noting this fact is hardly double talk. 2. I still say welfare state liberalism is qualitatively different from Soviet style Communism, as different as eating a cookie is from eating a whole box of cookies in one sitting. I object to conservatives equating liberalism to socialism because the comparison is inherently dishonest. 3. You object to a progressive tax, claiming that a flat tax is just. But if you accept a flat tax at all (everyone pays the same tax rate) then you already accept that rich people should pay more in taxes than poor people–a rich person paying 15% of a billion dollars pays more in taxes than a poor person paying 15% of a thousand. Why would you support that? I'd suggest it is because you understand that a dollar charged to a poor man is more burdensome than a dollar charged to a rich man. You also accepted the notion of exempting the poor from the tax, which means you are OK with rich and poor paying a different PERCENTAGE of their income for taxes. It seems to me you have thus conceded the PRINCIPLE of progressive taxation; we are only quibbling over the details. 4. You are against over taxation. Me too–I am against excessive anything. But you are wrong to say the Constitution says anything about what tax rates ought to be. The Constitution sets up the government system that determines tax rates and the electoral system that permits voters to get rid of legislators who set those rates if we don't like what they've done. I don't agree that 10% is the proper limit, I don't have a particular number in my head. It would depend on the situation. 5. You claim welfare state liberalism is unsustainable. I would submit that Norway, Denmark, in fact all of Europe and the USA is evidence that welfare states HAVE SUSTAINED themselves quite well. 6. You are incredulous about my claim that affirmative action doesn't systematically discriminate against white males. But I;d say it clearly doesn't. Affirmative action doesn't require hiring a less qualified minority over a clearly more qualified white male. Estimating who will perform better in a job in the future requires a significant amount of judgment on the part of those who hire people. Those judgments are skewed because on average the judgers are biased to some degree or another. This is why a white male has a positive advantage in the competition for any given job (or would without affirmative action). Affirmative action just erases some of that inherent advantage. your friend Keith

Our responses are getting shorter – that means either we’re getting somewhere, or we’re getting tired :) >> KEITH: 1. You call welfare state forced compassion. But compassion includes actually caring about the people you help. I totally agree, which is why it is not a good substitute. Yet, liberals argue that this type of ‘justice’ is compassionate, and to NOT do it is to lack compassion. But it is worse than faux compassion – it is actually CRUEL to both taxpayers, and to some extent, to receivers. To the former because it usurps their reponsibility, privileges, and freedom, and also in many cases for the latter, makes them defacto wards of the state, caught in golden handcuffs, as it were. All i am saying is that it is (1) not the government’s duty to create big programs to care for people, (2) not real compassion (as you noted) even though it is sold that way, and (3) it is unjust to have high taxes for such socialist schemes that ‘punish success.’ Something like that. But to your point, I agree, it is not compassion, it is merely sold that way, and even if you think it is not (but rather, as ‘justice’ or some such thing), my argument is that it is NOT just for government to violate the freedom of the successful for such things that are out of scope for civil government. My new motto, forged in these discussions, is “Promote, not Provide” And I might add, “not punish” :) >> KEITH: 2. I still say welfare state liberalism is qualitatively different from Soviet style Communism I actually agree with you, but it’s not black and white. I think that modern liberalism is fairly deep into the gray zone, flirting with the disastrous economic principles of socialism. We are close enough to that fire to be burning ourselves, and we need to step back, imo. >> KEITH: 3. You object to a progressive tax, claiming that a flat tax is just. But if you accept a flat tax at all (everyone pays the same tax rate) then you already accept that rich people should pay more in taxes than poor people- That is an interesting argument, and I had considered it, but here’s why I reject it. First, we both agree that taxation should be equitable, i.e. ‘equal.’ If we use the word ‘equal’ as a concrete mathematical term, there are three possible numbers we could use: 1. Equal amounts paid 2. Equal percentages 3. Equal amounts kept after taxes I’m not sure where progressive taxation fits in here, somewhere between 2 and 3. Imagine the injustice of #3, though! I make 100K, you make 10K, but we both take home 8K at the end of the year! LOL. Sadly, progressive taxation has waded directly into such a ridiculous injustice, they just didn’t make it all the way out (that would be ‘true’ Socialism or Communism). Equal percentages (flat tax) seems the most fair because, if you do well, you reap more, but you pay more – but there is an equality about this. I also note that the biblical tithe is a percentage, and I think this example also speaks to the justice of this approach. An extreme capitalist might say that we should all pay a flat AMOUNT (case 1) – so I make 100K, you make 10K, and we both pay a falt 2K. That too could be considered just, but it might be considered unjust for the same reason that I find progressive taxation unjust. Because *as a percentage of income*, someone is paying more than the other. I may not have found the bedrock argument/assumption for why a flat percentage is the most just, but I think it is a much stronger argument than the progressive tax, which I think is rightly viewed as punitive. >> KEITH: 4. You are against over taxation. Me too–I am against excessive anything. But you are wrong to say the Constitution says anything about what tax rates ought to be. I don’t think I said that anything about the Constitution setting a limit. However, originalintent.org has an informative analysis on this subject entitled Constitutional Issues of Taxation, discussing what the Constitution permits (not requires), the history of the various amendments (16) and decisions that affect us – the discussion of ‘direct’ v. ‘indirect’ taxes and how things called ‘income tax’ have been in both categories is interesting. It seems that they’ve left it up to the people to decide through their elected representatives. Maybe that’s the best we can do? I don’t think so :p To sum up, there IS such a thing as too much taxes, but I’m not yet sure how the Constitution or jurisprudence define them. It may even be that our current INCOME taxes themselves are unconstitutional, if not a bad idea – not just the progressive tax system, which to me is clearly unethical and unjust. This, of course, is the idea behind the Fair Tax (which I actually favor). >> KEITH: I don’t agree that 10% is the proper limit, I don’t have a particular number in my head. It would depend on the situation. The fact that you have no known way of determining what is ‘too much’ taxation shows me that (1) you have no way of assessing such a danger, so how can you tell a conservative that they are mistaken, and (2) you may not care enough to even think of that as a danger. The “I’ll know it when I see it” approach would be an ‘after the fact’ reckoning, one which lacks wisdom. And anyway, I think we can look right now and determine that taxes are too high. I don’t think that 10% is a hard number, but it ought to be a guideline – I know that ‘God’s word,’ not to mention, the Old Testament, is not necessarily our only guidebook as Americans, but as Christians, we ought to consider this in the forumulation of our ideas about taxation. The Fair Tax, which does away with ALL income taxes (including for Social Security) assesses a 23% sales tax on goods and services (note: ca. 20% of today’s retail prices are made up of the current invisible taxes that retailers pass on to us – so the fair tax would not really affect the bottom line of companies in sales, thereby protecting consumers, while allowing the companies to KEEP their net incomes!). But don’t get me started, I love the Fair Tax. I am not sure where they get 23% from. QUESTION: What rule or principle should we/you use for determining how much INCOME tax is too much? Since I support the Fair Tax (for now :), there is NO income tax in that system. But I suppose you could ask ‘how much federal sales tax is too much’ – not sure if a different principle might apply. Possible rules/principles include: – 10% (a ‘tithe’) (in fact, why don’t we ‘tithe’ to the feds, and they tithe to the states, which tithe to the county > city… just a thought) – 50% – more than half is usury! >> KEITH: 5. You claim welfare state liberalism is unsustainable. I would submit that Norway, Denmark, in fact all of Europe and the USA is evidence that welfare states HAVE SUSTAINED themselves quite well. 1. Norway has oil revenues which offset the deficit spending of welfare 2. I’m not sure about Denmark 3. Since social welfare is based, not on saving money, but on ‘spend as you go’ it is dependent on population. With declining populations (due, ironically, from liberal anti-family and anti-child ideology), the European countries are NOT sustaining their social welfare systems. 4. The US systems are essentially insolvent, and only ‘working’ because they are floating on massive debt. 5. If you measure the success of these programs with such measures as productivity, you see that such systems discourage efficiency and productivity. That’s not ‘working’ smart (or hard). These systems are, in my estimation, inferior. >> KEITH: Affirmative action doesn’t require hiring a less qualified minority over a clearly more qualified white male. In theory, perhaps not. In practice, ‘equally qualified’ is very subjective. As the Stanford paper pointed out, the reality is that middle and upper class minorities are chosen over poorer whites. I agree with you in theory (which is a concession on my point) that forcing an employer to take an equally qualified minority is not technically ‘discriminatory’, but it certainly forces the employer to take people that might not, for instance, be better qualified in personality (e.g. team player v. not), and in practice, it DOES lead to discrimination. But for now, I’ll actually concede this point, it is a good one. BUT OVERALL, I think we still disagree, since I think that – progressive taxation is unethical – social welfare programs should be minimal, and the broad liberal designs for this are not economically sustainable, nor socially wise, NOR biblical (yes, I think they can be demonstrated to be anti-biblical). – huge social programs violate principles of personal responsibility, freedom in giving, and sound principles of economics But I am sure we are not in agreement on these.

Hi Daniel: 1. On compassion; I don't agree with your characterization of the liberal view. Liberals recognize that our society could vote to help poor people, or it could vote to selfishly ignore the weakest in our society by reducing their own taxes. I think the lack of compassion claim is often unfair though. I try not to make it, and when i do make it I try to remember what jesus taught about hypocrisy. 2. On welfare state sustainability: I'd say that the Scandinavian countries are quite productive and have been for at least 50 years even with (perhaps BECAUSE of) their generous welfare state. especially when you consider that prosperity is more widely shared in those more egalitarian societies than in the US. The US welfare state has not made us unproductive either, in fact our economy has been stringer since the New Deal than it was prior, I'd say. 3. On Progressive taxation vs. flat taxes vs. sales taxes: Some observations are in order: A. A sales tax would fail the proportional to income principle you advocate because higher income people spend a smaller proportion of their income than do poor people. B. Still, both a true flat income tax (with zero deductions) and a VAT would collect more money from the wealth than the poor. Advocates generally think this is fair. Why? I think it's because you recognize that a dollar taken from a poor man is a greater sacrifice than a dollar taken from a wealthy man. I think you guys are implicitly accepting a principle of "equal sacrifice". I would argue that flat taxes violate that principle. I would say that a person with an income of (say) $100 billion per year would feel less burden if he paid 90% of that income in taxes (leaving him still with an income of $10 billion per year) than a person who had JUST EXACTLY ENOUGH to feed, clothe and shelter his family would feel if he paid 10% of his income in taxes and couldn't pay his rent. This is an extreme example to be sure, but I think it illustrates the principle. 4. About big government welfare state programs supposedly violating the ideas of " personal responsibility, freedom in giving, and sound principles of economics", I obviously disagree. We can discuss the sound economics some other time (but I would say that free markets without welfare state intervention leads to a degree of economic inequality that leads to economic instability. Some other time I guess). My comments: A. Personal responsibility? I would say that oftentimes, generous welfare programs are what ENABLES a person to be responsible. For example, a single mom who can't get enough welfare who has to leave her children unattended while she goes to work. Welfare would permit her to stay at hom and be a good mother. B. In other circumstances, generous welfare programs that provide income support to people who are working (like the Earned Income tax Credit, generous aid for higher education etc.). I see no reason to think these undermine personal responsibility. C. I also don't see why taxation undermines freedom in giving. Rich people are free to give whatever they want, after they pay their debts including their tax debt. your friend keith